|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. July 2007 13:06
IF:
quote:
By definition, Science can not consider anything that is determined to be supernatural/non-existent/imaginary/etc.
What if this "supernatural/non-existent/imaginary/etc." entity had affected the natural world in a way that was detectable and measurable? Could science then determine that this entity was simply supernatural and not non-existent or imaginary?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 25. July 2007 13:19
Daniel,
quote:
What if this "supernatural/non-existent/imaginary/etc." entity had affected the natural world in a way that was detectable and measurable? Could science then determine that this entity was simply supernatural and not non-existent or imaginary?
Do you have clarifying examples for both questions?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. July 2007 13:44
miosim:
quote:
There is no absolute TRUTH (unless God exists), but a relative TRUTH only, This TRUTH depends on initial conditions of a problem.
...
The initial conditions of problems could be changing from time to time or from one culture to another culture, thus causing an evolution of TRUTH. For example, what is the TRUTH about the structure of our universe? The CORRECT answer varies. A thousand years ago, the CORRECT answer was - the Sun, the few planets, and the stars are rotated around the Earth. Since then we learned a grate deals about our solar system and have another CORRECT answer. Tomorrow we may learn more profound facts about our universe and the CORRECT answer could be different from today’s one.
There is no "evolution" of truth. There is only an evolution of knowledge about the truth. The truth never changes and there is only one truth. The reason the thousand year old answer is not considered correct anymore is because we have found out that it doesn't jibe with the truth (reality). We may find later that the current "correct" answer doesn't match up with the truth either. This only serves to show that we have a partial knowledge of the truth, not that the truth changes.
You, in a nutshell, have disproved your own hypothesis: The bottom-up search for truth (problem solving) results in myriads of agreed upon but incorrect (not true) answers.
In regards to the truth, democracy doesn't work; There has to be an ultimate absolute truth. quote:
This means that you refuse "bottom up" intelligent causation of human society that originated from human groups and from individual humans.
No, I accept that. Human societies are very dysfunctional - nothing like the complex, finely tuned organizations within living organisms. quote:
The proposed mechanism of group decision making indicates that there is no limit to PSA (Problem Solving Ability) of a group to solve a problem of any complexity, if group has a sufficient number of members.
You may argue that too often small groups - start up company, for example, demonstrate a superior PSA compare to huge companies. But this doesn’t contradict to proposed views, because PSA of a group depends on PSA of individual members and strong interactions, that often are superior in a small group.
I think you're arguing against yourself here. quote:
Within Cristian doctrine the knowledge about God is not encouraged and limited to notion that God is infinite and perfect. The biblical story about punishment of Adam and Eve, the biggest punishment God impose on humans for trying a “fruit of knowledge”, indicates that knowledge about God within religions based on Old Testimony is a sin and therefore is a taboo.
You obviously have an ignorance of Christian theology and scholarship. To make such a broad sweeping generalization is irresponsible. Some of the greatest thinkers of our time have been Christians: Tertullian, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, The Cappadocian Fathers, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Martin Luther, Erasmus, John Calvin, and many others.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
All of these people spent their lives pursuing a more complete knowledge of God, the truth and the natural world. To say that such seeking is "taboo" within Christianity is an uneducated bizarre statement.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. July 2007 14:05
Miosim,
Quote: I have tried to make clear that a goal of my hypothesis is explaining not a specific human intelligence and a specific human decision making, but explaining intelligence of all material systems from elementary particle to human society.
And I agree with the goal of attempting to develop a unified explanation that fits all forms of intelligent causation. The generality of your goal, however, does not mean you are justified in ignoring or misrepresenting the evidence available with respect to human decision making which is beyond doubt a form of intelligent causation.
Quote: As I mentioned in my posting from 18 May 2007 the proposed decision making mechanism yields a higher Problem Solving Ability (PSA) of a group (compare to PSA individual member) if an essential conditions are met: an independence of individual members is preserved and a power to influence a decision is distributed evenly among its members. In more general terms “Truth” is determined by POWER to influence a decision.
Again this ‘theory’ or model is not compatible with the actual evidence. The facts or evidence shows that if you place humans in a normal human social environment they will exhibit a relatively high problem solving ability. If you isolate any human from his social environment, his personal problem solving ability will drop down to a level not materially different from that of other primates. The sophisticated problem solving we attributed to humans only occurs when humans are in and have been in a human social environment for an extended period of time.
Furthermore, you can extract the social information used by humans in problem solving from the social environment and input the information into a computer program and produce human like intelligent decision making. Furthermore, if you apply appropriate filters to the data extracted from the social environment, you can produce computer problem solving or decision making that is demonstrably better than the human problem solving.
Again, if you want to understand intelligent causation and if you want to analyze intelligent causation scientifically, you have to learn to actually observe what is happening, not try to force observations into your model or theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. July 2007 14:13
Miosim,
Quote: The same inconvenience we may experience explaining human locomotion using equations of the classical mechanics. Regardless our ability to perform this analysis, we know (or belief) that all human locomotions are indeed reducible to basics laws of the classical mechanics.
I believe that the actual assertion is that all human locomotions are logically compatible with the laws of classical mechanics. Very different than your assertion. There is nothing in classical mechanics that defines goals like ‘go to the kitchen’ or ‘stay upright’ or ‘get the golf ball to go in the hole’.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 25. July 2007 14:54
Daniel,
quote:
Daniel,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if this "supernatural/non-existent/imaginary/etc." entity had affected the natural world in a way that was detectable and measurable? Could science then determine that this entity was simply supernatural and not non-existent or imaginary?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have clarifying examples for both questions?
Things like photons, gravitons, gravity itself, electrons, positrons, dark energy, dark matter, quarks, a force field of any kind, empty space i.e. a void, etc.
I know things like that are not supernatural but do you have examples like that?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 26. July 2007 06:54
quote:
Daniel:
There is no "evolution" of truth. There is only an evolution of knowledge about the truth. The truth never changes and there is only one truth. The reason the thousand year old answer is not considered correct anymore is because we have found out that it doesn't jibe with the truth (reality). We may find later that the current "correct" answer doesn't match up with the truth either. This only serves to show that we have a partial knowledge of the truth, not that the truth changes.
According to your assessment (and I agree with it) we are using the word TRUTH, that’s actually not TRUTH, but just the currently accepted "correct" answer that may not match up with the TRUTH yet. So how do we know where we are standing in reference to the TRUTH? How far are we from it? Is evolution of our knowledge approaching a TRUTH or going further from it? Until someone, God for example, tells us where we are in reference to TRUTH, we cannot assess our knowledge, and therefore the only choice left is to accept that current “truth” is whatever a majority agreed upon.
quote:
Daniel:
You, in a nutshell, have disproved your own hypothesis: The bottom-up search for truth (problem solving) results in myriads of agreed upon but incorrect (not true) answers.
I didn't disproved my own hypothesis. I just didn’t do a good job explaining it.
Any systems can make mistakes, regardless how many members it has. If a complexity of a problem exceeds a PSA of a group - the result will be incorrect, otherwise system solves problem correctly.
quote:
miosim:
The proposed mechanism of group decision making indicates that there is no limit to PSA (Problem Solving Ability) of a group to solve a problem of any complexity, if group has a sufficient number of members.
You may argue that too often small groups - start up company, for example, demonstrate a superior PSA compare to huge companies. But this doesn’t contradict to proposed views, because PSA of a group depends on PSA of individual members and strong interactions that often are superior in a small group.
Daniel:
I think you're arguing against yourself here.
To achieve an enhanced PSA of a group, few conditions have to be met. One of them is that members in a group are able to interact among each other to compare results. This means that the structure of the group must enable interaction among all of its members. Therefore, the group where these interactions are enabled (atom, molecules, macromolecular within cell, neuron cells network, social organisms etc.) demonstrates enhanced PSA.
It is important to distinguish those type of groups from just a collection of elements that are loosely connected. In these groups, interactions among members of a group are limited and therefore its PSA will not rise to its maximum. Examples are peoples on crowded street, passengers on a airplane, big company where peoples often acts as a small “political parties” rather working as a team.
quote:
Daniel:
You obviously have an ignorance of Christian theology and scholarship. To make such a broad sweeping generalization is irresponsible. … people spent their lives pursuing a more complete knowledge of God, the truth and the natural world. To say that such seeking is "taboo" within Christianity is an uneducated bizarre statement.
I have no doubt that many brilliant peoples have devoted their life to theology, but I didn’t notice any significant progress of knowledge about God. May be it is because I am uneducated about Christian theology and scholarship. Can you provide me with links that help me to understand a current theological knowledge about God? I also would like to understand why Adam and Eve were punished so severely for trying a fruit of KNOWLEDGE?
quote:
miosim:
… the proposed decision making mechanism yields a higher Problem Solving Ability (PSA) of a group (compare to PSA individual member) if an essential conditions are met: an independence of individual members is preserved and a power to influence a decision is distributed evenly among its members. In more general terms “Truth” is determined by POWER to influence a decision.
LE:
…this ‘theory’ or model is not compatible with the actual evidence. …The sophisticated problem solving we attributed to humans only occurs when humans are in and have been in a human social environment for an extended period of time.
What kind of evidences my model is not compatible with. In my model humans solving a problem are working as a team? Is a team not qualified as social environment?
quote:
LE:
… if you want to understand intelligent causation and if you want to analyze intelligent causation scientifically, you have to learn to actually observe what is happening, not try to force observations into your model or theory.
I don’t intend to develop a comprehensive theory of human intelligence. I just emphasize a most essential its mechanism of a group decision making that explains why PSA of a group could be higher than PSA of its members. In this case a higher number of members in a group the higher its PSA is.
quote:
miosim:
The proposed mechanism of group decision making indicates that there is no limit to PSA (Problem Solving Ability) of a group to solve a problem of any complexity, if group has a sufficient number of members.
You may argue that too often small groups - start up company, for example, demonstrate a superior PSA compare to huge companies. But this doesn’t contradict to proposed views, because PSA of a group depends on PSA of individual members and strong interactions that often are superior in a small group.
Daniel:
I think you're arguing against yourself here.
To achieve an enhanced PSA of a group, few conditions have to be met. One of them is that members in a group are able to interact among each other to compare results. This means that the structure of the group must enable interaction among all of its members. Therefore, the group where these interactions are enabled (atom, molecules, macromolecular within cell, neuron cells network, social organisms etc.) demonstrates enhanced PSA.
It is important to distinguish this sort of group from just a collection of elements that are loosely connected. In this type of groups, interactions among members of a group are limited and therefore its PSA will not rise to its maximum. Examples are peoples on crowded street, passengers on a airplane, big company where peoples often acts as a small “political parties” rather working as a team.
quote:
Daniel:
You obviously have an ignorance of Christian theology and scholarship. To make such a broad sweeping generalization is irresponsible. … people spent their lives pursuing a more complete knowledge of God, the truth and the natural world. To say that such seeking is "taboo" within Christianity is an uneducated bizarre statement.
I have no doubt that many brilliant people have devoted their life to theology, but I didn’t notice any significant knowledge about God, may be because I am indeed uneducated about Christian theology and scholarship. Can you please provide me with links to theological knowledge about God? I also would like to understand why Adam and Eve were punished so severely for trying a fruit of KNOWLEDGE?
quote:
miosim:
… the proposed decision making mechanism yields a higher Problem Solving Ability (PSA) of a group (compare to PSA individual member) if an essential conditions are met: an independence of individual members is preserved and a power to influence a decision is distributed evenly among its members. In more general terms “Truth” is determined by POWER to influence a decision.
LE:
…this ‘theory’ or model is not compatible with the actual evidence. …The sophisticated problem solving we attributed to humans only occurs when humans are in and have been in a human social environment for an extended period of time.
What kind of evidences my model is not compatible with. In my model humans solving a problem are working as a team? Is a team not qualified as social environment?
quote:
LE:
… if you want to understand intelligent causation and if you want to analyze intelligent causation scientifically, you have to learn to actually observe what is happening, not try to force observations into your model or theory.
I don’t intend to develop a comprehensive theory of human intelligence. I just emphasize a most essential mechanism of a group decision making that explains why PSA of a group could be higher than PSA of its members.
To demonstrate this I removed cluttering details intentionally simplifying the human problem solving process and focusing on the essential mechanism relevant to my hypothesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 26. July 2007 07:28
Miosim,
Quote: I have tried to make clear that a goal of my hypothesis is explaining not a specific human intelligence and a specific human decision making, but explaining intelligence of all material systems from elementary particle to human society.
Somewhat as an aside, you should be aware that there are at least three possible types of universal explanations for intelligent causation. The type of class of universal intelligent causal factor you are suggesting is essentially a physical form of intelligence that is in some logical manner similar to physical forces like gravity. The second type or class of universal intelligent causal factor is some powerful universal ‘intelligence generating logic algorithm’. A certain portion of AI advocates appear to be pursuing this option. They believe that there is some as yet undiscovered type of logical processing algorithm that will make computers intelligent.
The third option for a universal explanation of intelligent causation is a logical abstraction. According to this approach, the one I advocate, at the center of all forms of intelligent causation will be a single abstract logical form or structure. This logical structure can and does take many different physical forms, but the abstract form or structure will always be the same. It can be reasonably argued that at a single common type of abstract structure is at the center of all physics theories. Despite what lots of people believe, there is no actual evidence that forces like gravity are ‘real’ rather than ‘logical abstractions created by human scientists’.
If the universal central feature of all intelligent causation is some type of logical abstraction, then my candidate for the central feature of intelligent causation is what is can be labeled the ‘general purpose logic machine’ or ‘programmable computer’. If any complex intelligent causation is reduced relatively simple components, this approach suggests, it will be possible to model and simulate these elementary components with general purpose logic machines where the intelligent causation or intelligent processing at any point at time can be modeled or simulated in terms of logical input-output processing and the dynamic changes in processing between any two points in time can be modeled or simulated by changes in processing programs controlled by external input.
If you use or accept this logical abstraction as the universal feature or property of intelligent causation, then you can scientifically analyze intelligent causation using this logical abstraction and intelligence based teleological theories.
The benefit or value of this approach is that it is the only approach that can be shown to be compatible with the hard science paradigm. The drawback, is that very apparently very view people have the ability to understand the use of relatively complex logical abstractions in scientific analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 26. July 2007 09:23
Miosim,
Quote: I don’t intend to develop a comprehensive theory of human intelligence. I just emphasize a most essential mechanism of a group decision making that explains why PSA of a group could be higher than PSA of its members. To demonstrate this I removed cluttering details intentionally simplifying the human problem solving process and focusing on the essential mechanism relevant to my hypothesis.
I don’t mean to pick on you, but your arguments do illustrate the difference between ‘scientific testing’ and ‘soft science armchair analysis’.
You are attempting to propose a theory or model based on the ‘generalized intelligence’ concept. This type of concept or theory asserts that there is a single general ‘force’ of intelligence and if you put together multiple units of this force you get an increase in intelligence that should be proportional in some way to number of units of intelligence included. This is logically similar to the argument that the more units of mass we have, the stronger the force of gravity.
Doing simple armchair analysis we might conclude that we get higher levels of intelligence if we have more neurons and we get greater displays of human intelligence if we have groups of humans.
But if we do more rigorous formal scientific analysis, we quickly conclude that the simplistic concept of ‘general units of intelligence’ does not stand up to testing. We know that nervous systems involve set of basic processing units called neurons and we know that computers of build up from basic binary switch processing units. But such observations are not sufficient to support the general intelligence concept.
We know from analysis of computers, from analysis of nervous systems and from analysis of human behavior that ‘intelligence’ is not simply a cumulative product of individual intelligent units. For a group of elementary units to produce specific forms of aggregate intelligence, the units need an appropriate logical structure or set of interconnections and the individual processing units need to operate on appropriate specialized processing logic.
If anyone hopes to develop meaningful scientific models and theories of intelligent causation, they need to be able to address the known facts which include 1) the existence of apparently similar generalized process units, 2) the importance of structure and communication between units, 3) the existence of specialized programs or processing in specialized units, and 4) the apparent ability of individual units to change, adapt, and/or learn.
Certainly one big problem in the scientific analysis of intelligent causation is the huge gulf that exists between 1) actual knowledge of the complexity of intelligent causation, and 2) the simplistic and unrealistic explanations for intelligent causation promoted by academic science. The truly silly claim that the complexity of biological design can be explained by two simplistic processes RM and NS is probably the classic example of this problem. But equally as silly are the currently popular agent-based systems and aiguy’s ‘unique character of brain processing’ models of intelligent causation. Miosim, your generalized force of intelligence model, while an interesting concept or model, is one that has been pretty thoroughly investigated and rejected.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 26. July 2007 09:36
Daniel,
Quote: What if this "supernatural/non-existent/imaginary/etc." entity had affected the natural world in a way that was detectable and measurable? Could science then determine that this entity was simply supernatural and not non-existent or imaginary?
Quote: There is no "evolution" of truth. There is only an evolution of knowledge about the truth. The truth never changes and there is only one truth. The reason the thousand year old answer is not considered correct anymore is because we have found out that it doesn't jibe with the truth (reality). We may find later that the current "correct" answer doesn't match up with the truth either. This only serves to show that we have a partial knowledge of the truth, not that the truth changes.
Interesting questions and observations. First, as your questions imply, science does not have reject supernatural causation on an a priori basis. Rather, science rejects supernatural causation because or only as long as such causation can not be subjected to formal testing. The current ‘best belief’ is that supernatural causation is something potentially beyond human knowledge and understanding. Supernatural gods, it is widely recognized are sufficiently superior to man or a mystery to man and man lacks the intelligence or ability to understand and explain supernatural intelligence. In effect, if God doesn’t want us to know something we are not going to be smart enough to figure it out.
If and when God or the gods decide to let humans in on supernatural knowledge in some manner that goes beyond ‘testing reality’, we may be able to incorporate supernatural causation into scientific theories. Despite what some people believe, that day has not yet arrived. Man’s ability to determine truth is still limited to our ability to test truth against reality.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 26. July 2007 13:17
IF:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if this "supernatural/non-existent/imaginary/etc." entity had affected the natural world in a way that was detectable and measurable? Could science then determine that this entity was simply supernatural and not non-existent or imaginary?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have clarifying examples for both questions?
Sure.
Example for question #1:
A complex programming language that is at the heart of every living organism. This language comes with it's own built in reader, error correction, translation, and transcription mechanisms. It is part of an overall system that is self-replicating and all of it's parts are programmed to repair themselves.
This should be sufficient evidence that an intelligence far beyond man had a hand in the invention of life.
This language and all of it's various support mechanisms are detectable and testable. The only logical explanation for their existence is design by an incredible intelligence. No other explanation is forthcoming (or ever will be). Yet, because "science" artificially disallows for the possibility of a "god", it is stuck with forever saying "we don't know".
Example for question #2:
If we found a complex mechanical machine beyond human capabilities to design, we would automatically infer the existence of some alien race - even though we had never seen them and still had no idea as to their origin or identity. We would still deduce that such an alien race was real and not imaginary based on the very real machine they left here. What we have found is more complex and more sophisticated than any machine. This raises the very real possibility that a thing very much like what many people call "God" is real and not imaginary.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 26. July 2007 13:33
LifeEngineer:
quote:
Interesting questions and observations. First, as your questions imply, science does not have reject supernatural causation on an a priori basis. Rather, science rejects supernatural causation because or only as long as such causation can not be subjected to formal testing. The current ‘best belief’ is that supernatural causation is something potentially beyond human knowledge and understanding. Supernatural gods, it is widely recognized are sufficiently superior to man or a mystery to man and man lacks the intelligence or ability to understand and explain supernatural intelligence. In effect, if God doesn’t want us to know something we are not going to be smart enough to figure it out.
If and when God or the gods decide to let humans in on supernatural knowledge in some manner that goes beyond ‘testing reality’, we may be able to incorporate supernatural causation into scientific theories. Despite what some people believe, that day has not yet arrived. Man’s ability to determine truth is still limited to our ability to test truth against reality.
I think God has left a "paper trail" that we all can follow. This "paper trail" is an observable, testable set of complex interacting systems that - when examined closely - boggle the mind as to their sophistication and ingenuity. It's all right there before our eyes, yet so many of us refuse to see it.
quote:
Somewhat as an aside, you should be aware that there are at least three possible types of universal explanations for intelligent causation. The type of class of universal intelligent causal factor you are suggesting is essentially a physical form of intelligence that is in some logical manner similar to physical forces like gravity. The second type or class of universal intelligent causal factor is some powerful universal ‘intelligence generating logic algorithm’...
The third option for a universal explanation of intelligent causation is a logical abstraction.
I'd add a fourth type of intelligent causation: An infinite intelligence.
I think the universe and life are evidence of this type of intelligent causation.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 26. July 2007 15:07
Daniel, quote:
Example for question #1:
A complex programming language that is at the heart of every living organism. This language comes with it's own built in reader, error correction, translation, and transcription mechanisms. It is part of an overall system that is self-replicating and all of it's parts are programmed to repair themselves.
Is what you are calling a programming language the same thing as what science would call very complex chemical reactions in combination with their concomittant natural processes? Can we say that in the history of humans, the more complex the reaction and the less we know about it the more mysterious it looks? For example, ignitions and fires, viral/bacterial infections, reproductive birth, etc.
quote:
This should be sufficient evidence that an intelligence far beyond man had a hand in the invention of life.
I'll bet primitive peoples felt the exact same way about many such processes for example the rain cycle.
quote:
Yet, because "science" artificially disallows for the possibility of a "god", it is stuck with forever saying "we don't know".
If you were tasked with the investigations into all of the "supernatural" possibilities that have been imagined by different groups all over the world and throughout human history to explain the various "mysteries" of life what criteria would you use to prioritize the various studies?
quote:
Example for question #2:
If we found a complex mechanical machine beyond human capabilities to design, we would automatically infer the existence of some alien race - even though we had never seen them and still had no idea as to their origin or identity. We would still deduce that such an alien race was real and not imaginary based on the very real machine they left here. What we have found is more complex and more sophisticated than any machine. This raises the very real possibility that a thing very much like what many people call "God" is real and not imaginary.
Could a more "natural" explanation at this time in our learning process be that we have much more left to learn? Remember, we were only allowed to investigate many of life's mysteries just a very short time ago (in historical terms) and against great odds as everyone knows. Many arguments and many mistakes have been made in the interim but the progress is very evident. The effort to investigate nature and its processes from a natural point of view has been worthwhile don't you think?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 27. July 2007 04:27
quote:
LE:
The third option for a universal explanation of intelligent causation is a logical abstraction. According to this approach, the one I advocate, at the center of all forms of intelligent causation will be a single abstract logical form or structure. This logical structure can and does take many different physical forms, but the abstract form or structure will always be the same. It can be reasonably argued that at a single common type of abstract structure is at the center of all physics theories. Despite what lots of people believe, there is no actual evidence that forces like gravity are ‘real’ rather than ‘logical abstractions created by human scientists’.
It is interesting. What do you mean a gravity is a ‘logical abstractions created by human sscientists’?
quote:
LE:
Doing simple armchair analysis we might conclude that we get higher levels of intelligence if we have more neurons and we get greater displays of human intelligence if we have groups of humans.
The size of group is not allays insure a higher level of intelligence. As I mentioned in my previous post, it is important to distinguish the groups able enhancing PSA of its members from just a collection of loosely connected individuals that cannot achieve a maximum PSA due to limited interaction (lock of teamwork). Therefore, in many cases smaller group have higher PSA than bigger group.
In the most general terms I see the two ways how group may solve a problem.
First, the problem could be reduced to the multiple problems of the lower complexity and than to be solved separately by individual members of a group. If a problem can’t be reduced to the problems of the lower complexity, all members of a group are solving the same problem and according to my hypothesis the probability of correct answer is increasing logarithmically with increasing number of member in this group.
What is in your opinion a general mechanism of solving a problem by a group and how the size of a group affects the probability of correct answer?
quote:
LE:
miosim, your generalized force of intelligence model, while an interesting concept or model, is one that has been pretty thoroughly investigated and rejected.
I would greatly appreciate if you send me references to these investigations.
P.S. I will be on o road for a few days and will not able to respond promptly.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 27. July 2007 04:47
Daniel,
Quote: I think God has left a "paper trail" that we all can follow.
Quote: I'd add a fourth type of intelligent causation: An infinite intelligence.
The line between theology and science is an interesting one. Lots of ID supports see ID as an opportunity to bring religion and religious beliefs into the field of science. To some it as simple as treating documents like the Bible a better source of real world knowledge than actual verifiable observations and testing. You seem to be one of those who see science as a possible way of proving the existence of God and more specifically the actions of God in actively controlling at least parts of the universe.
I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but you appear to believe that human scientists will be able to prove that God is operating or has operated to control things like evolution. You appear to see the issue as not whether God is responsible for evolution, but whether man and science can prove that God was involved.
Such a position does not conflict with science, but it does conflict with basic concepts of theology. One of the older arguments against the existence of a God, is that ‘If God really exists she would show herself and convince me of her existence’. The theological answer to this is that God must be accepted as a mystery that can only be accepted on faith. If she so wishes, God can reveal herself, but if she doesn’t so wish, God is so much more powerful and knowledgeable than man that she can easily hide hard evidence of her existence from us.
The argument about scientific demonstrations of a universal intelligence, is essentially an argument that man is clever enough to prove the existence of God even if God does not wish to have her existence proved. You are essentially arguing that man might be smarter than God. This is essentially the same logic involved in building the Tower of Babel.
My more pragmatic view of science and theology suggests that man is not likely to ever challenge God or his knowledge or wisdom. Science, from a pragmatic view, is simply using man’s limited abilities to accumulate and validate knowledge to help solve some practical problems. The scientific analysis of human intelligence, for example, is intended simply as a means of helping us understand how we make ‘intelligent decisions’ and hopefully helping us to reduce the number of really stupid decisions made.
Some people would like to believe that bringing religious beliefs into science is a method of challenging science. The reality, however, seems to be that such efforts are really a thinly veiled effort to challenge God.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
